Hi my name is Atlas Bell, and I’ll be your novice debate judge.

About me:

I use they/them pronouns

if you are upset or have questions about my ballot, decisions, or my paradigm PLEASE email me at atlas.bell.debate@gmail.com

I am a 4th year debater at Lansing high school. i am extremely familiar with speech and debate.

a little bit about my speech and debate record; i was at CFL nationals for Poetry and prose last year and I have been at state for debate every year of my career.

i have very little tolerance for logical fallacies and even less tolerance for verbal abuse. Be kind to your opponents and have respect for your judge. we are all here to learn and have fun so don't ruin it by getting way to heated over something trivial.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Strengthen Its Protection Of Domestic Intellectual Property Rights In Copyright, Patents, And Trademarks.

Stock:

• it think there is something quite charming about doing stock correctly.
• the five stock issues are Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. If either team drops any of these they lose on the flow, IMO.

counterplans:

• counter-plans can be good, I'm waiting for them to be great. i HATE conditionality, go for dispositionality. its WAYY better.
• kicking the counter-plan just because makes me upset and sad.
• "Dispositional-status of a counterplan that would allow the negative to only kick the counterplan if the affirmative team has made defense arguments only (including but not limited to a permutation, solvency deficits, or theory arguments)." - NSDA definition of a dispositional counterplan

Disads:

• for a disad, you must have uniqueness, a link, and an impact. without any of these parts i will not consider the DA in my decision.

Kritiks:

• i love a good Kritik or non-linear disad, but it has to be done RIGHT.

• explain how the alt solves, without alt extension and a proper link chain i will not weigh the K.

Hannah Cleveland (She/Her)

I debate at Olathe North and am currently a junior.

Please add me to the email chain: hannahccleveland@gmail.com

Please don't be rude/disrespectful, it will probably result in a loss of round/loss of speaker points.

I am extremely sensitive to noise, specifically to excessively loud speaking or speaking loudly while someone else is talking. I would greatly appreciate it if you could be mindful of this to ensure I can effectively adjudicate the round.

Please refrain from requesting to shake my hand; my answer is no thank you. We can all agree to show mutual respect without exchanging approximately 1.24 x 10^8 CFU of bacteria.

Please don’t stare directly at me for the entirety of your speech.

With these accommodations in mind, I am open and eager to listen to any argument that does not harm anyone involved in the round.

Tech>>>>>>>Truth

I will evaluate the round using the framework given to me. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Everyone should be timing every speech, every cross-ex, and all prep time used.

Disclosure is good and fun :)

General:

Andrew Dai (he/him)

Olathe North '24

Princeton '28

andrewdai33@gmail.com

Thoughts:

I know NOTHING about the high school topic other than that's extremely research intensive. Please over-explain.

I read a wide-range of arguments in high-school and feel fine evaluating whatever type of debate. It's my job to adapt. I read almost exclusively K arguments on both sides sophomore and junior year and read primarily policy arguments on both sides senior year. I had relative success doing both.

I think debate is a technical game where both sides want to win. That being said, there are lots of other reasons we enjoy debate. Tech>>>>>truth but the more outlandish a claim is, the more lenient I will be to responses. I filter debate through an offense/defense paradigm whatever that even means. I will only evaluate arguments based on what I have recorded on my flow.

AFFs should be in the direction of the resolution. I'm not very sympathetic to planless AFFs that insert a SINGLE card saying the topic is bad (despite doing so for a majority of my career). I think many planless AFFs lose to presumption and that T is the best strategy against many (but not all) planless AFFs. Impact turns or a counter-interpretation strategy vs T are both viable options, and I don't really care what the AFF strategy there is. But strategically speaking, impact turns are probably better in front of me. I agree with Kendall Kaut's opinions on plan vagueness: it's gotten egregious.

Links should be to the plan. In a perfect world, it's an uphill battle to convince me the AFF does NOT get to weigh their plan but equally as hard to convince me that a model of 0 Ks is good. In a vacuum, the fiat K is probably true but probably bad for debate.

Clash and fairness are both good impacts in front of me. You should go for whichever one will win you the round.

Counterplans should at least be functionally competitive, but this predisposition can obviously be overcome by technical debating. I will default to judge kick being good unless any objections. I don't understand the general disdain for process CPs: simply get good at going for theory/competition if you think they're cheating. I feel comfortable evaluating one of those debates if that is your primary strategy. Conditionality is a question of abuse not "X" number of advocacies.

I will do my best to not intervene in the personal lives of debaters. It's my belief that debate isn't the best place for ad-homs and that I should not be evaluating the behaviors of debaters outside the round. After all, I'm basically the same age as all of you. The exception is that if someone is actively uncomfortable or unsafe, I will intervene, report to Tab, and talk to a coach. Racism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated and will result in an auto-loss.

If someone drops "we get auto-30s" and you go for it, chances are, your speaker points will not start with a 3. Save your time.

Miscellaneous:

If you read blocks straight down full-speed, strike me.

Being incomprehensible is the same as clipping. I will stop flowing if I can't understand you. I will "clear" you as many times as needed.

I think I make certain visual reactions when judging.

Sending out analytics is a personal choice (absent accessibility issues). I don't care if you don't send them in most cases.

I think I'm pretty good at remembering debates I've judged or been in so feel free to email me anytime regarding a debate.

In online debates, I'd prefer if everyone has their camera on.

Speaks are over-inflated, so I'll try to accommodate the norm and the level of tournament.

Paradigm

I’m currently a second-year debater and have been to a few tournaments. I haven’t judged much so keep it slow. Please explain all arguments, tell a story, and do overviews (explain overall arguments), and if you can without running out of time, under-views (explain cards). Flow the debate (maybe share a flow with your partner to help)! It’ll help you organize and clash with the opposing team's arguments, and help you a lot in rebuttals (which should be mainly off of flow) to recognize what arguments you’ve made, what they’ve made against it (or if they’ve dropped arguments).

I like to do speechdrop.net, but my email for an email chain is TFatimah@bluevalleyk12.net

I’ll take tech over truth. I’m trying to judge how well of a debater you are compared to whether or not you have the argument I agree with. You still need to explain and be convincing though.

5. Any general advice for the debaters

1. Be kind and friendly with the other team, and be respectful and professional. Don’t be harsh, racist, or prideful.

2. Give a roadmap for every speech.

3. Make your speech readable when you speech drop/email it.

4. Don’t cheat by stealing prep time or cutting cards. Time your speeches. For prep time, sometimes people steal prep accidentally, so for reference, whenever a timer is not running you can’t prep. So no talking to your partner, typing things up, etc between speeches when the other team or you are sending your speech.

5. Again, Flow.

6. Make eye contact when reading, don’t just read off, be fun and tell a story with your voice! Emphasize certain words when speaking, speak boldly, and when debating you should be acting a bit.

1. Topicality

For me to vote on it, make it convincing that the aff violates topicality. do it with teams you actually believe are not topical. Be sure to have all parts of the T ( definition, violation, standards, voter). Topicality is an a priori issue, so aff team, don’t drop it or it’s an automatic win to the negative.

2. Counterplans

Have a plan text. Make sure it’s competitive with the negative team. Explain it, explain the net benefit Just a tip for the aff, you should run perms with the counterplan.

3. Disadvantages

Please run a CP with the DA. like all arguments I’ve mentioned before, explain it and its connection to the aff, and its impact of course.

4. Kritiks

Explain them really well, help everyone in the round understand what it is and explain how they apply to the aff specifically.

Hi, I'm Isabella. They/Them.

ilfoster26@gmail.com

If you're setting up the chain, please label what tournament, round, and side you're debating on.

EX: Washburn Rural---R1---[AFF] ONHS FC v. [NEG] BVN AM

disclosure is good. :)

Prep starts when you start talking to your partner, typing, or writing things down. It ends when the document is sent.

4th-year debater at Olathe North, debating on the National Circuit. I went to Mich7 this summer. 1A/2N. I read policy arguments currently. In my 2nd year of debate, my only 2NR was a queerness K. I go for framework against critical affirmatives. I will listen to and evaluate any form of argument.

TL, DR: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on it if you did a good job running it. I don't feel as though I've "earned" the opportunity to have super concrete ideas about debate, but I've included my thoughts (as they are in a singular snapshot) if you want to read them.

Debate is an educational game. To the degree that debate can influence the world or our subjectivities, it's through engaged clash with a well-prepared opponent and fair adjudication.

The specificity of your link will dictate how I evaluate the magnitude of your turns case arguments, the validity of perm shielding arguments, and the impact calculus within the round.

I will only evaluate things that have happened in the round.

I am a better judge than most for theory. That does NOT mean I will vote for arbitrary theory arguments that are unwarranted/aren't impacted out. BUT, it does mean that if there is a theoretical objection within the round that you are willing to go for in the rebuttals, feel free to give a 5-minute vagueness 2NR. The only caveat to this is that I find that most theory debates devolve into block-reading contests. The more blocks that you read instead of making arguments off the flow, the lower speaks you will get. I also think there has to be a clear justification for why some arguments are worth rejecting the team for---this can be proven via a big push on in-round abuse OR making arguments about the broader implication of the opposition's model of debate.

Concessions matter more to me than other judges. If you can make a smart concession on one page of the debate and contextualize it to another argument, I will reward you with higher speaks.

I default to: offense/defense, judge kick, technical concessions, condo good. That being said, I can always be convinced otherwise.

I read a plan. Whether that is a "rule" of debate or just a norm is something that I can be convinced of in either direction. I go for T/FW against critical affirmatives, but that does not mean I am unwilling to listen to/evaluate your aff. It will take a lot of specific explanation/contextualization to the round to win a link to a K that's just "fiat bad".

I will vote on critiques of the debate space, I'm not the best judge for "debate bad".

I'm fine in a competition debate. As a 2N, I'm probably better for cheaty counterplans than other judges. My personal ideology is that functional competition is sufficient but I can be convinced otherwise.

I'm probably better for a T-USFG v. K-Aff debate than I am for a method v. method debate.

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.

bvw '25

for email chains: Iman.suleman1011@gmail.com

remember novice debate is for learning and having fun!

Pronouns: She/her

Lansing '22

4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics

Lansing HS Assistant Coach

KU '

i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it. if you wanna run a k or anything like that i don't care but i would prefer for it to be something you can clearly convince me of, your k should basically be an alternate reality and if i'm not convinced it can exist then i won't vote for it. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that. if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that